The Washington critic., 1887-09-07
JUDGE FIELDS DECISION.

L. 5. Circuit Court, rendered by Jus.
iloe Field at San Francisco, in the
matter Of the application of the
Pacific Railway Commission for an
order upon Leland Stanford to show
cause why he should not be com.
PEELED to answer certain questions, Is
at hard.
Disappointing as its conclusions are
TO the public, its reasoning compels
acquiCsCence, and the prcccdents cited
will excite surprise that the trainers OF
the law could have overlooked them.
The decision rests upon the consti
tutional limitations placed upon Con
gress and the courts respectively. Ii
declares that the Pacific Railway Com.
mission is not a court, and possesses
no judicial power to determine any of
the rights of the Government, or of the
corporations 1t was appointcd to in.
vestigate; that Congress can only
compel the production of private books
and papers in the regular course of
judicial proceedings; that the judicial
department is Independent of the leg.
islative In the Federal Government,
and Congress cannot make the courts
its instruments In conducting mere
Legislative Investigations; and that the
courts are open to the United States, as
TO private parties, TO secure ample pro.
lection for all its legal rights and In.
terests by legal proceedings.
The decision means that Congress Is
not q grand jury, sitting TO discover
crimes and indlct criminals; and that
the courts are not mere thumbscrews
TO be applied to contumacious witnesses
before committees or commissioners
created for legislative purposes.
In the public eagerness to fasten
upon the Overland Railway managers
the crime of bribery, of which the gen.
eral opinion has long since convicted
them, and In the desire of ambitious
statesmen to crafty this public sppe.
lite, the fact seems to have been lost
sight Of that Congress cannot try Grim
inals, nor use the courts In aid of ex-
posures useful only as incentives to
legislation.
If Mr.. Stanford has committed fel.
onies, he canno. be examined upon the
subject as a basis for judicial proceed
ings; and legislation could not reach
the case II he should confess himself
guilty of bribery hundred times.
Judge Field cites the case of Xii.
-bourn VS.. Thompson (ll3 U S. 1862, in
which the Supreme Court declared
No person can be punished Tor contumacy
asa witness before either House, unless his
testimony is required in a matter into which
that House has jurisdiction to Inquire, and We
feel equally sure that neither OF those bodies
possesses the general power Of making In
quiry into the private affairs Of the citizen.
1Ie held that Stantord's expenditure
Of moneys not specifically accounted for
and not charged rs an outlay in the &C.
counting between the Government and
the corporation, was not proper sub.
ject for Congressional inquiry under
the law as decided in that case. Said
the Court:
This case tl<lbourn vs.. Thompion) will
stand for all time as a bulwark against the
invasion of the right OF the citizen to protcc
lion III MS private HiIalT against tnt ulim-
tied scrutiny of investigation by a Congress
sional committee. The courts are open to the
United States as they are to the private citl
zen, and both can there secure By regular pro
6eedings ample protection of all rights and
interests which are entitled TO protection
under Government of q written Constitution
and laws.
BY this is clearly meant that the
Central Pacific Railway Company car
~ be restrained from waste of its assets
while indebted to the United States
and probably be compelled 10 repair
any waste hitherto committed without
the assent of its creditor, the Govern
ment.
This Is far inference from the fol
lowing words contained In the dissent
irg opinion of Justice Field In the Sink
ing Fund cases 90 U. s. 750.)
II 1t tthe Govenment) had cause of com
plant against the company, II could not un
dertake itself by Legislative decrte to redress
the grievances; but was compelled to seek re
dress as all other civil corporations are com
PEELED, through the judicial tribunals. II til,
company was wa''iH7 rs property, of which
no allegation is made, or impdiiHg hc Sc
enrify Of Ne GoreyHmeat, he r5msiy By sui
qrds dUIc,"
This was plain talk. The company
has notorlously wasted Its property by
building rival trunk line, and by Ia,
abandonment OF much of the line OF
which the Government lien rests IL
favor of new portions Of road, and hai
thereby destroy6d the security of thr
Government, All this was in fraud o
the rights of the Government. I,
what extent this has been condonod b
governmental iuaction is aquestion TO
The courts to determine.
The plain duty Of the Goyernmen
is to institute suit against the Contra
Pacific for the righting OF thes
wrongs. Let the courts he asked 4
say that the security Of lhe Governmsu
shall extend to new lines built out o
the earnings of the subsidized line
expressly to destroy the value OF tn
Governments security, and that as t.
these nGw lines the Governments liel
shall be frst
First mortgage bonds issued In aid o
the gross fraud perpetrated upon tn
Government by building lines of roa,
TO destroy the value of the lines mort
gagged TO 1t are tainted With the fraud
and should be subordinated to tn
rights of the Government.
This course Is the only one proposing
any remedy. If Legislation Is necessary
10 authorize the suit, let It be had. Bu
let us have done with noise ant
noisome Investigations, which aim a